What is the difference between the scattering of photons and the reflection of photons. According to present wisdom, reflection of photons means that they ( bounce ?? ) of surfaces without any alteration in energy, frequency or wave-length while scattering constitutes absorption and emission of the photon with a possible change in frequency, wave-length and energy. If it is possible to come up with a more absurd idea, I would like to be the first to hear it ? How, using whatsoever means of logic available is it possible for such an anomaly to take place? The discovery of the Balmer, Rydberg and Lyman series clearly demonstrates that light of specific wavelength is due to the absorption and emission of certain photon energies. How then is it possible for light ( any light) to just bounce off some surface and still preserve its original energy ! Surely it goes against the Laws of the Conservation of Energy, to even consider such a phenomenon ? Fortunately, it is possible to determine by experimentation whether the reflected light has the same frequency and wavelength as the incident light. It is common knowledge that the reflected light and frequencies, barring any anomalies in the conditions in which the reading takes place such as interference with other matter, has the same frequency and wave length as the incident light. This is a physical impossibility precisely because even though a photon might be a mass-less particle it does possess energy on which depend both its frequency and wave-length, to assume that such a photon can bounce of an object without any change in its energy and a resultant change in frequency and wavelength is absolutely absurd. I have emphasised over and over again in my posts that the old quantum mechanics view of photon emission and absorption as a one off process, a photon being absorbed and after a suitable interval being emitted and after another wait another interaction is a virtual dinosaur, that is NOT how things work. Instead photon absorption and emission should be viewed as taking place at the same frequency with which the electron is being irradiated, the electron oscillating rapidly back and forth between its rest state and excited state, giving rise to a steady stream of photons being emitted at the frequency and wave length needed to maintain the atom's equilibrium. Two processes, one for scattering and one for reflection are not involved.

What does this mean ? It calls into question the whole ethos of the Big Bang that assumes that the process of multiple scattering changes the distribution of photon energies from the gamma rays and optical photons to a black body spectrum that is characteristic of the core temperature, in a process known as thermalisation. the overall effect is that the energy that was generated by a small number of high energy photons is now in the form of a large number of low energy photons whose energies are distributed according to a black body curve. Leaving for the moment the issue of whether this change was due to the scattering or reflection of photons, (it doesn't really make much difference until it is applied in a different sense.).

According to the Big Bang Theory The Photon Epoch (or Radiation Domination),lasted from 3 minutes to 240,000 years:

During this long period of gradual cooling, the universe is filled with plasma, a hot, opaque soup of atomic nuclei and electrons. After most of the leptons and antileptons had annihilated each other at the end of the Lepton Epoch, the energy of the universe is dominated by photons, which continue to interact frequently with the charged protons, electrons and nuclei.

The next stage in the Big Bang theory is the Recombination/Decoupling, lasting from 240,000 to 300,000 years:

As the temperature of the universe falls to around 3,000 degrees (about the same heat as the surface of the Sun) and its density also continues to fall, ionized hydrogen and helium atoms capture electrons (known as “recombination”), thus neutralizing their electric charge. With the electrons now bound to atoms, the universe finally becomes transparent to light, making this the earliest epoch observable today. It also releases the photons in the universe which have up till this time been interacting with electrons and protons in an opaque photon-baryon fluid (known as “decoupling”), and these photons (the same ones we see in today’s cosmic background radiation) can now travel freely. By the end of this period, the universe consists of a fog of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of lithium.

It is time to pose the question and to honestly respond to it. Does this correspond in ANY WAY to what is known of photon emission and absorption. The answer is that it does not, it is well known that photons mediate the energies of electrons as such any slight change in the electrons state will result in the emission and absorption of photons. It is impossible to even contemplate the number of photons that must have been created in this span of 240,000 years (approx.) certainly more than enough photons to fill the Universe . According to the Big Bang theory matter constitutes only 4% of the total matter in the Universe, how is it possible for that 4% of matter to absorb the numbers of photons produced during a period lasting 240,000 years. It is not possible, even taking into account thermalisation, it doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that as the photons permeated the whole of the Universe without possibility of interaction with matter, the energy was distributed in the same manner as thermalisation, but at such low energies as to create a 'virtual photon aether' allowing light to propagate. And setting the speed of light.

Light any light does not occur in the form of individual photons, it occurs in the form of trillions and trillions of photons per second, imagine that process going on for 240,000 years (-3 minutes) and it is possible to see a Universe filled with light, which eventually, in the absence of any interaction with matter to renew their energies, faded to extremely low energies that constitute the 'virtual photon aether'.

Logged

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

Energy and momentum are conserved. If one photon enters one side of an atom and only one photon exits the other side, then either the exit photon has the same energy and momentum as the entry photon (including exactly the same direction), or some momentum and energy are left behind in the atom, perhaps in the form of lifting an electron to a higher orbital.

A photon reflecting perpendicularly off of a massive mirror surface reverses its direction. This imparts very slightly less than twice the photon's initial momentum to the mirror, and the photon rebounds with very slightly less momentum than it had.

Until now, I've been tacitly using the mirror's own coordinate system. In another system with significant velocity relative to the mirror, there is a Doppler shift. If the mirror's motion is parallel to that of the incoming photon, the reflected photon will be redshifted; anti-parallel, blueshifted.

Energy and momentum are conserved. If one photon enters one side of an atom and only one photon exits the other side, then either the exit photon has the same energy and momentum as the entry photon (including exactly the same direction), or some momentum and energy are left behind in the atom, perhaps in the form of lifting an electron to a higher orbital.

My point is this, is it really necessary to insist that a photon's frequency, which in any other sense, even when a photon is considered as a radio wave, is a function of its periodicity, should in the case of optical photons be treated as a separate and distinctive property having nothing to do with periodicity but existing instead as some kind of abstract property with no physical meaning ? Surely that is ridiculous ? Bear with me for a moment, consider for instance the emission spectrum of hydrogen, can we assume that the hydrogen atom possesses only one electron ? If so how do you explain the emission spectrum of hydrogen which contains blue , green blue, red etc light each having distinctive frequencies. If it were an atom with multiple electrons there might be latitude for some confusion, however since there is only one electron involved, it follows ( indeed if any attempt is to be made to be logical, it must follow) that, if for instance the excited hydrogen atom is emitting blue light at 500 nm and a frequency of 6 x 10 14 Hz, it follows that this must be due to that single electron oscillating back and forth at just those frequencies(i.e., at the rate of times a second)? Following this line of reasoning further if the electron in the hydrogen atom can oscillate at such frequencies isn't it possible that electrons in more complicated atoms possessing multiple electrons, have the same capability? Now before you state that the frequency of the photon has nothing at all to do with it. Consider for instance the generation of Microwaves with frequencies of 10 13 Hz, if it is possible for a man made device to create oscillations at 10 13 Hz , what makes it so impossible for an electron within an atom to oscillate at frequencies of 10 14 Hz. In fact to deny such a possibility, which is apparently what you are doing if I am not mistaken, is totally unreasonable. Would you agree with this statement ? In spite of the fact that it might be claimed that gravity waves have been found, there still seems to be some confusion on the mechanism of photon emission and the one off scenario that your post seems to imply apparently has widespread support.

Quote

A photon reflecting perpendicularly off of a massive mirror surface reverses its direction. This imparts very slightly less than twice the photon's initial momentum to the mirror, and the photon rebounds with very slightly less momentum than it had. If the mirror's mass is 1 kg, its velocity changes by It's energy changes by J, which is times the photon's energy. The reflected photon's wavelength is increased by a factor of ). This is generally considered insignificant.

Too true but there is nothing in the realm of physics that states that it is in fact reflection that is taking place, in the example given above ( see first paragraph above) it is shown that photon emissions do take place at fantastic frequencies, the electrons oscillating trillions of times a second, why even consider a mechanism where the photon's wave-length is increased by a factor of , when in the first place such an insignificant (to us) difference, might be considerable for a photon and in the second place is totally unnecessary, a competent working mechanism of absorption and emission being already in place. Why have a separate process for reflection and a separate process for scattering, when patently, there is absolutely no sane reason for it ?

Logged

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

Bear with me for a moment, consider for instance the emission spectrum of hydrogen, can we assume that the hydrogen atom possesses only one electron ? If so how do you explain the emission spectrum of hydrogen which contains blue , green blue, red etc light each having distinctive frequencies. If it were an atom with multiple electrons there might be latitude for some confusion, however since there is only one electron involved,

A single hydrogen atom will only emit one photon at a time. The different frequencies available can be explained by there being multiple energy levels available, between which the electron can move. The reason the emission spectrum of hydrogen has multiple lines is because the samples used always have many atoms (I would be surprised if there were many measurements made on collections of fewer than 1010 atoms, and therefore 1010 electrons involved...)

it follows ( indeed if any attempt is to be made to be logical, it must follow) that, if for instance the excited hydrogen atom is emitting blue light at 500 nm and a frequency of 6 x 10 14 Hz, it follows that this must be due to that single electron oscillating back and forth at just those frequencies(i.e., at the rate of times a second)? Following this line of reasoning further if the electron in the hydrogen atom can oscillate at such frequencies isn't it possible that electrons in more complicated atoms possessing multiple electrons, have the same capability? Now before you state that the frequency of the photon has nothing at all to do with it. Consider for instance the generation of Microwaves with frequencies of 10 13 Hz, if it is possible for a man made device to create oscillations at 10 13 Hz , what makes it so impossible for an electron within an atom to oscillate at frequencies of 10 14 Hz. In fact to deny such a possibility, which is apparently what you are doing if I am not mistaken, is totally unreasonable. Would you agree with this statement ? In spite of the fact that it might be claimed that gravity waves have been found, there still seems to be some confusion on the mechanism of photon emission and the one off scenario that your post seems to imply apparently has widespread support.

Is it perhaps possible that there are multiple mechanisms of photon formation? Yes, we can make radio waves and microwaves by oscillating currents in wires. But what about systems that contain no electrons? For instance the gamma rays produced by annihilation of a proton and an antiproton, or gamma rays produced by transitions in nuclei, or x-rays produced by accelerating protons (cyclotron radiation)...

why even consider a mechanism where the photon's wave-length is increased by a factor of , when in the first place such an insignificant (to us) difference, might be considerable for a photon and in the second place is totally unnecessary, a competent working mechanism of absorption and emission being already in place. Why have a separate process for reflection and a separate process for scattering, when patently, there is absolutely no sane reason for it ?

Maybe there are different models for the different processes because people have observed two distinct processes... That sounds sane to me.

The gist of the above is that in order for an electron to transition from one state to another it has to enter a supposition of the initial and final state. The resulting supposition is no longer time independent and evolves over a finite amount of time from being more initial state to being more final state with significant oscillations. The result for an electron in an atom is that the electron cloud changes shape in an oscillatory manner with a frequency that matches the light being emitted or absorbed.

The reason most physics courses don't talk about this processes is because it requires some pretty complicated mathematics (even by Quantum standards) and in general you can calculate everything you are likely to need to know about the absorption of a photon without ever detailing the processes. Most physical observables of interest like the energy of the photon can be calculated from the time independent stationary states so there is no reason to bother with the more complicated stuff.

The oscillations that occur in the electron wave function during a transition exactly match the oscillations of the incoming or outgoing photon.

Quote

Why have a separate process for reflection and a separate process for scattering, when patently, there is absolutely no sane reason for it ?

Reflection and scattering are precisely the same thing. Reflection is just scattering from a lot of atoms all arranged in a very uniform way such that the resulting scattering is also very uniform and reinforces itself.

A mirror's silver layer provides a constant-voltage surface. When a photon hits that surface, the outer electrons of the silver atoms move about in such a way that their combined electric fields together with the incoming photon add up to a constant-voltage surface. Subtracting the electric field of the incoming photon yields the electric field of a virtual photon continuing along the incoming photon's path and disappearing into the depths of the mirror's virtual image. When the electrons rebound to their equilibrium positions, they emit a real photon; and angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Total internal reflection, like in a glass prism, works on a different principle. I'll let you look that up, yourself.

The blue sky is caused by Rayleigh scattering. You can look that up, too.

A single hydrogen atom will only emit one photon at a time. The different frequencies available can be explained by there being multiple energy levels available, between which the electron can move. The reason the emission spectrum of hydrogen has multiple lines is because the samples used always have many atoms (I would be surprised if there were many measurements made on collections of fewer than 1010atoms, and therefore 1010 electrons involved...)

May I request you, just for a moment to take your nose out of your books and say, take a walk around the garden or to sit and admire a favourite piece of furniture, its shape its colour and so on. Or even just look around at the clutter on your desk, the pens, the covers of books, maybe the mouse pad. Try to imagine that all this wonderful, terrific wealth of information is being delivered to your senses by one atom, emitting one photon at a time, if you can succeed in doing this you are truly a magi of Quantum Mechanics, one of the consecrated ! If after this exercise you still feel that your impossible to ascertain statement is true, then well and good, my reasoning must be at fault and I will have to re-think my ideas.

Logged

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

A mirror's silver layer provides a constant-voltage surface. When a photon hits that surface, the outer electrons of the silver atoms move about in such a way that their combined electric fields together with the incoming photon add up to a constant-voltage surface. Subtracting the electric field of the incoming photon yields the electric field of a virtual photon continuing along the incoming photon's path and disappearing into the depths of the mirror's virtual image. When the electrons rebound to their equilibrium positions, they emit a real photon; and angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.

Unless my powers of observation are sadly lacking it seems to me that in order to justify the above statement there should be many more metallic surfaces present than occur naturally. In fact there appear to be more matte surfaces than reflective ones, yet they are also clearly visible. So your reasoning is that those surfaces, like mirrors that have a shiny metallic surface, reflect photons, while matte surfaces like woolen scarves or carpets or clothing absorb and re-emit photons to convey information. Doesn't this seem redundant to you, isn't it possible that metallic surfaces have so many suitable electrons at the surface that they are able to absorb and re-emit a far greater range of photon energies than matte surfaces ?

Logged

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

The oscillations that occur in the electron wave function during a transition exactly match the oscillations of the incoming or outgoing photon.

The above seems to be closer to the gist of what I have been saying and the links also seem to bear this out.

Quote

Reflection and scattering are precisely the same thing. Reflection is just scattering from a lot of atoms all arranged in a very uniform way such that the resulting scattering is also very uniform and reinforces itself.

The above statement is not supported, according to present thinking, scattering and reflection are two different and separate processes.

Logged

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”

A single hydrogen atom will only emit one photon at a time. The different frequencies available can be explained by there being multiple energy levels available, between which the electron can move. The reason the emission spectrum of hydrogen has multiple lines is because the samples used always have many atoms (I would be surprised if there were many measurements made on collections of fewer than 1010atoms, and therefore 1010 electrons involved...)

May I request you, just for a moment to take your nose out of your books and say, take a walk around the garden or to sit and admire a favourite piece of furniture, its shape its colour and so on. Or even just look around at the clutter on your desk, the pens, the covers of books, maybe the mouse pad. Try to imagine that all this wonderful, terrific wealth of information is being delivered to your senses by one atom, emitting one photon at a time, if you can succeed in doing this you are truly a magi of Quantum Mechanics, one of the consecrated ! If after this exercise you still feel that your impossible to ascertain statement is true, then well and good, my reasoning must be at fault and I will have to re-think my ideas.

Please re-read my comment. I thought it was very clear that I was stating that our observations are of MANY atoms, and that therefore we must consider what happens in huge collections of atoms when trying to comprehend the world around us. Thus (relatively) simple treatment of single atom phenomena, when considered en mass yields the complex and beautiful world around us.

In respect to a Photon, a Photon travels a linear path at the speed of the light (c) .

The above is taken from your post The Theory of Realistic! . The photons I am referring to are the same photons ( apparently) that you are referring to in your post.

ar, but if you had read further .

7. Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.

Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant. Space is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed. Ourselves, observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object is not opaque, it is relatively perceived to be ''see through''. This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in darkness.

Let us consider the difference of three dimensional objects relative to the surrounding relativity of the space and the observable effect of spectral colour. When we are observing an object we observe three dimensional light at the objects exact location, we see this three dimensional state of light as spectral colours. We observe the ''tips'' of a length of light to be different to that of the clarity of length of space.

There is some ''truth'' in that the light propagating through space is observed as a dimensional singularity relative to sight, thus proposing the matter reflecting or emitting light are three dimensional light singularities observed in a one dimension singularity of light which is perceived to be a clarity in reactive observation.

Thus leading us to the proposition of the Box singularity, which we shall discuss in length in the next chapter. In continuation of understanding the constant-'constant let us look at the consistency of therelativity of the observation of the one dimensional whole of light propagating through space.

In imagination let us imagine the ''invisible man'' standing but only 10 feet away from us. It would be a conclusion that it would be impossible to define the dimensions of the ''invisible man''. In regards to this we can consider that the ''invisible man'' has no dimensions of width , height or length to reflect light at a greater ''band-width'' than the singularity whole . In any direction of observing a length between eye and object there is a ''truth'' in that we observe a singularity whole which has no apparent dimensions.

There is no lie's relatively that while submerged in a swimming pool we observe the length of water before our eyes.

Thus leading us to enquire about the nature of light and the existence of the said single particle namely the Photon. Relatively no observer, observes the existence of a single photon, neither does the observer, observe such as photon packets. Relatively all observers , observe the singularity whole to be not opaque.

There is certainty a ''truth'' that we observe dust particles or the falling of rain or snow, but there is no ''truths'' in the relativity of us observing Photons. This does not conclude that our eyes do not detect Photons, it concludes the relativity to observation.

Reflection and scattering are precisely the same thing. Reflection is just scattering from a lot of atoms all arranged in a very uniform way such that the resulting scattering is also very uniform and reinforces itself.

The above statement is not supported, according to present thinking, scattering and reflection are two different and separate processes.

No reflection is just coherent scattering. They are not different processes.

No reflection is just coherent scattering. They are not different processes.

Here is an account of the present wisdom on the phenomena of scattering and reflection, I do not necessarily hold the same views:

What is the difference between Reflection and Scattering?

• Scattering is a wave property of matter whereas reflection is a particle property.• Scattering requires a total absorption and emission of a particle or a photon, whereas reflection only bounces back the incident particle or wave.• The wavelength of the incident wave can change due to scattering, but it cannot change due to reflection.• Reflection is easily observable, whereas observation of scattering requires advanced equipment.• The law of reflection holds to any reflective material whereas the equations for scattering is dependent on the materials and conditions used.

A radical shift is needed away from the present static treatment of the phenomenon of the absorption and emission of photons , it should be replaced with a dynamic model in which every object in the universe in thermal equilibrium absorbs and emits radiation continuously. Why is this important ? It is important because this simple but important fact completely changes, or more accurately gives a new slant to ideas that were previously overshadowed by the considering of the emission and absorption of photons by looking at atomic models that give a one off description of the process but do not extend it to the everyday level where it would be obvious that each electron is absorbing and emitting photons at the photon frequency of the incident light. Any practitioner of Quantum Mechanics reading this will immediately state "What baloney!", frequency is an abstract property of the photon, it has no physical existence in reality. If due consideration is paid to the fact that the frequency of photons was calculated in exactly the same manner that the frequency of radio waves or sound waves is calculated, namely by dividing the speed of the wave by the wave- length. The wave-length of light can be calculated using an interferometer , since the speed of light is constant it is possible to calculate the frequency of that particular light ( if it is monochromatic). It is therefore clear that the frequency of light does actually have some physical basis. This being so it follows that electrons must be absorbing and emitting ( at least where reflection is concerned) photons at the same frequency as the incident radiation. However, Quantum Mechanics cannot agree to this as they do not believe there is a physical basis to the frequency of light precisely because of wave/particle duality. In Quantum Mechanics, at least as far as the emission and absorption of photons are concerned, the frequency of light is an abstract concept. IF on the other hand we ignore wave/particle duality and view light as a synthesis of light and particle ( i.e., not light as either particle or wave but as both together) rather like the hypersound used in lipotripsy, which is most definitely a wave but whose effect are particle like, the concept of frequency of light as a physical quantity begins to make sense. This is the point I am trying to convey to chiralSPO, to theBox, and Phractality who continue to evade or pretend not to see the issue. Wave/particle duality is absolute bunkum and should be scrubbed.

Logged

“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”